KHAN: 25 Years Ago Today

[TomServo]

I can't resist threads about Trek, but will refrain from a lengthy reply at this time - still at work! In response to the end of TREK IV, with the cast back at their regular stations, I think it must be kept in mind that Trek is still an episodic format, even when it the big screen. The II-III-IV trilogy was not planned out as such and worked regardless (mostly), but the Trek format is basically about having its cast back each week in the same roles in order to investigate the next planet, new race, step in our evolution, etc. That is drive of the show and not so much a serialized format where the characters grow and change past the initial format. The cast is the vehicle, or vessel, for the audience and fans to experience future travel and discovery in space. The fact the the series has some great characters just make it that much more engaging.

[AndyDursin]

A lot of my preference for TNG also comes down to the fact I prefer Stewart/Picard to Shatner/Kirk. I've been a fan of Stewart since I, Claudius (in which he played the villainous Sejanus).

Shatner's a hoot and great fun, but impossible to take seriously. Stewart is believable as a starship commander -- imposing, steely, determined. Stewart also exhudes an intimidating virility (yet Picard's romantic interludes are believably selective) in contrast Shatner's "prettyboy" lothario (who tries to pork every girl he comes across).

And Shatner wears a wig -- so who is more of a REAL MAN?

It's absolutely all a matter of personal preference. As much as I love his over-the-top shenanigans, I also have no problem taking Shatner seriously -- I cared emotionally for Kirk because I could identify with him. I actually thought he was excellent in KHAN, I didn't find his mannerisms a distraction there whatsoever.

Stewart has all the classical training in the world, yet I can't identify with him in the same way. He's a phenomenal actor but he just doesn't generate the same kind of emotional response to me. Picard is a cold fish by comparison with Kirk... he's determined but also icy and hard to identify with. When Kirk died in GENERATIONS I really was irritated and gave a damn -- something tells me that Picard's death, had in come in that same sequence, wouldn't have generated the same response for most viewers by comparison.

It's the same with the series. The best episodes of TOS compare favorably to the best episodes of TNG, and I also disagree that "Everything" about TNG is better. Those TNG effects are nearly as dated now in their own way as the threadbare effects of TOS are today...not as bad, but they DO look like a videogame.

And while Brent Spiner is a "better" actor than Leonard Nimoy, etc. etc., there is a chemistry between Kirk and Spock that NO other Star Trek has matched in my eyes. It's why, to me, none of the TNG movies have anywhere near the emotional resonance of II and its immediate follow-ups, even though they tried to mimic the same sorts of "twists" with the destruction of the Enterprise, the death of Data, etc.

And I'm not saying I "hate" TNG, either, but rather explaining my preference for the original series, its flaws and all. TNG has always felt like a colder, more technologically-oriented series with "better" actors who simply aren't as warm or "human" to me. I can't identify with it in the same way, no matter how many times I've tried.

BUT...if you want to tell me the cast as a whole is more talented and capable and trained, sure, I can't argue that.

[Eric Paddon]

"In response to the end of TREK IV, with the cast back at their regular stations, I think it must be kept in mind that Trek is still an episodic format"

That's all well and good for the TV series, but for the movies IMO, the bar needed to be raised which was what II did magnificently and finally bring Trek into the realm of more modern day storytelling where everything couldn't end in such a formulaic fashion all the time. That to me is why I can't call Trek (TV) superior to a show like "Battlestar Galactica" which started the process of breaking that mold.

People do get older and move on to other things and accept other challenges in life. Maybe keeping things status quo in a setting a year or two after the series, but as old men and women? I just didn't buy it. It left a bad taste in my mouth.

[AndyDursin]

People do get older and move on to other things and accept other challenges in life. Maybe keeping things status quo in a setting a year or two after the series, but as old men and women? I just didn't buy it. It left a bad taste in my mouth.

But from where they ended up in III, after stealing the Excelsior and facing charges of mutiny and such, it worked just fine dramatically to me. Did you think they'd just be completely let off the hook? They were lucky to get back where they were after hyjacking the Federation's new ship!

[Eric Paddon]

The badness of IV's resolution from my standpoint ultimately in the end only underscored for me why III as a result is a film I can't enjoy either, since it set the stage for it. So that's why it was better for me to backtrack to II and leave things there, where the future for the characters is something I can project in more satisfying ways in my mind.

[Paul MacLean]

In any case, going back to Star Trek II and 1982, it was a pretty amazing year for movies (and scores) in general...

In addition to Star Trek II there was also...

Blade Runner
Conan The Barbarian
E.T.
Poltergeist
Tron
The Thing
The Secret of NIMH
The Road Warrior
First Blood
Das Boot
The Dark Crystal

And if that weren't enough Fox also re-released Star Wars in August!

Even some more marginal films that year still had memorable scores -- Monsignor, Night Crossing, Frances and Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid.

[AndyDursin]

The Summer of '82 was phenomenal. It's not just nostalgia, either, when you look at it -- those movies are SO much better than what we've seen the last few years. They really don't make 'em like they used to.

[DavidM]

The tone in Star Trek IV is so goofy that it doesn't feel like a fitting end to that particular trilogy. I still like the movie though. can you imagine what it would have been like if they'd actually cast Eddie Murphy in the Catherine Hicks role?

[AndyDursin]

The tone in Star Trek IV is so goofy that it doesn't feel like a fitting end to that particular trilogy. I still like the movie though. can you imagine what it would have been like if they'd actually cast Eddie Murphy in the Catherine Hicks role?

Thank goodness that didn't happen

I totally understand what Nimoy and Bennett were trying to do with IV. After the heavy, serious tone of the previous two installments -- gravely serious in fact -- they wanted to lighten things up, do a romp (why James Horner's score wouldn't have worked at all in that film), work it in with a contemporary subject matter, get out of set-bound confines (the third movie was entirely filmed on sets), and tie up the loose ends. IMO the movie hit on all cylinders, with some hard-core Trekkies objecting to it because it wasn't "pure" Trek and was silly to them, but the movie's box-office result speaks for itself in terms of broad appeal. Other than the original movie it's the only film of the series that crossed over outside the fan base.

As a movie I think it holds up extremely well, and certainly played well with an audience too.

It's also true that those movies were not designed as a trilogy per se, it's just how it worked out -- but in hindsight it worked out incredibly well, with III being a bit on the bland side but II and IV offering their own distinct pleasures.

[John Johnson]

The tone in Star Trek IV is so goofy that it doesn't feel like a fitting end to that particular trilogy. I still like the movie though. can you imagine what it would have been like if they'd actually cast Eddie Murphy in the Catherine Hicks role?

I always thought the Eddie Murphy part was going to be a small cameo playing one of the garbage collectors?

[Eric W.]

The tone in Star Trek IV is so goofy that it doesn't feel like a fitting end to that particular trilogy. I still like the movie though. can you imagine what it would have been like if they'd actually cast Eddie Murphy in the Catherine Hicks role?

I always thought the Eddie Murphy part was going to be a small cameo playing one of the garbage collectors?

Actually the role was going to be larger than that. I'm glad it didn't happen.

[AndyDursin]

The tone in Star Trek IV is so goofy that it doesn't feel like a fitting end to that particular trilogy. I still like the movie though. can you imagine what it would have been like if they'd actually cast Eddie Murphy in the Catherine Hicks role?

I always thought the Eddie Murphy part was going to be a small cameo playing one of the garbage collectors?

That was after he fell out of playing what became the Catherine Hicks role. The original concept for the character was supposed to be a lead role for Murphy, and I believe they were pretty far along as well in the script when he dropped out (and ended up making THE GOLDEN CHILD instead).

[mkaroly]

OK for fun, rank the series in order of your faves. (I know where Eric and Paul are going to put IV, lol....)

Here goes -- and I'm putting these in order of, "if I had to watch one right now..." kind of personal preference.

1. II - KHAN
2. IV - VOYAGE HOME
3. TMP - MOTION PICTURE
4. III - SEARCH FOR SPOCK (not sure I like this that much, I'll need to see it again for a re-assessment)
5. VI - UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY
6. V - FINAL FRONTIER (guilty pleasure)
7. FIRST CONTACT (TNG's best, but not great)
8. GENERATIONS (will never forgive them for killing Kirk...and like that, too!)
9. NEMESIS (could've been, should've been...but wasn't)
10. INSURRECTION (dull as dishwater, but a nice Goldsmith score)

Okay- here's my ranking:

1. II- KHAN
2. IV- I really liked the humor and the "lightness" of it.
3. VI- I just really enjoy this movie, though the ending could have been a bit better...
4. TMP- it seems awkward at times, but it brings back memories of childhood and Goldsmith's score is outstanding.
5. FIRST CONTACT- after GENERATIONS, this was a vast improvement and I like Goldsmith's score.
6. INSURRECTION- I guess this would be my guilty favorite- I don't know why because it is the film that most plays like an extended TV show, IMO- but Goldsmith's love theme and that "slow down time" scene, as silly as it was, make this film watchable for me.
7. V- FINAL FRONTIER- Has its funny bits- Shatner got shafted on this one. Saw this in the theater with Candace Boyce in high school (I will always be thankful to her for sitting through that one with me).
8. GENERATIONS- difficult to watch but it was their first try.
9. III- SPOCK- I just don't like this- I was mad that Kirstie Alley didn't come back as Saavik and I never got into the story.
10. NEMESIS- very splotchy and disappointing. It is sad that they ended the film series with this one (at that time).

[mkaroly]

In any case, going back to Star Trek II and 1982, it was a pretty amazing year for movies (and scores) in general...

In addition to Star Trek II there was also...

Blade Runner
Conan The Barbarian
E.T.
Poltergeist
Tron
The Thing
The Secret of NIMH
The Road Warrior
First Blood
Das Boot
The Dark Crystal

And if that weren't enough Fox also re-released Star Wars in August!

Even some more marginal films that year still had memorable scores -- Monsignor, Night Crossing, Frances and Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid.

Wow- when was the last time we had a summer release schedule like that?? I saw all those films but TRON (still haven't seen that one) in the "major" list. Of the other films, I only saw Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid.

They don't make 'em like they used to....although....would we have said the same thing as adults during that time period?? Who knows....either way, what a summer!

[Eric Paddon]

For me, 83 is the first big movie summer I remember well.

Blue Thunder (first R-rated movie I ever saw. I was 14)
War Games
Return Of The Jedi
Octopussy (Four times I saw it. First 007 film theatrically for me)
Superman III (bad but it was an event)

I also to my shame saw the awful "Curse Of The Pink Panther" since I had always been a fan of that series and wanted to see what was going to happen there. I had initially planned to see "Jaws 3-D" until I learned that Roy Schedier was not in it. Didn't see that for 20 years as it turned out!